Re: [DISCUSS] Where do we draw the line?

On 10/19/18 3:27 AM, Albert wrote:

maybe Zoltan could share his feel on that review, and Vladimir could act
correspondingly.

During the review process Vladimir had some good points; I tried to focus on those - and tried to overlook he's style - it kinda worked well to just see the value in his
comments - although he never acknowledge any of my concerns - I was not against those modifications.

At the end of that process I was adding assertion messages - I thinked the core part of the patch have made it thru the review :)

A day have passed without any comments... after it got in that conversation on the "commit" started...I tried to give my best explanations - but when that comment came
about thumblr: that blow the fuse out...I've written some long message about why are we here - but eventually I've cleared most of it; except the last few words.

I'm not sure what Vladimir's goal with he's behaviour, but this thing kinda take away my willingness to file another ticket...
regards,
Zoltan

I have not contributed to Calcite in a while but I keep up with whats going
in project and actively follow mailing list and jiras of interest.
I concur with Josh that it is public shaming and bullying. This is not
acceptable. Also, this is not an exception but pattern which tells me that
it will continue in future too.
This is not in line with ASF code of conduct and respectful dialog expected
in community.
Thanks,
Ashutosh
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:24 PM Michael Mior <mmior@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You can see that I already responded to the comment and I don't really

have

many further thoughts. I do agree though that it's true that this could
have been intended humorously and my reaction didn't acknowledge that.

I’m not too concerned about the "Do you aim to get an entry in
accidentallyquadratic?” comment — it could be interpreted humorously,

if

it

were not at a end of a long, contentious review thread.
I am more concerned that it was a long contentious review thread. The
problem is that Vladimir is dogmatic. He makes a point, that point is
acknowledged by the other party, but he absolutely refuses to give

ground.

This occurs on the issue of messages for assert statements, and on the
issue of the O(n ^ 2) performance of the algorithm.
There is no path to consensus, other than yielding to Vladimir.
I have experienced this behavior also. I had fixed a bug — the

expression

“TRUE IS FALSE” was being simplified to TRUE — and Vladimir vetoed my

fix

on the “technical grounds” that I had added tests without sufficient

error

messages. The veto left me absolutely furious, and I seriously

considered

leaving the community. I surmise that other people who are on the

receiving

end of his criticism may feel the same way.
I appreciate Vladimir’s efforts reviewing code, and I appreciate his

high

standards, but he needs to change his communication style.
Perhaps it would be useful if we discuss under what circumstances a
committer can veto a change. ASF policy [1] says the following:

Votes on code modifications follow a different model. In
this scenario, a negative vote constitutes a veto, which
cannot be overridden.

If the R-T-C policy is in effect, a positive vote carries the
very strong implied message, 'I have tested this patch
myself, and found it good.' Similarly, a negative vote
usually means that the patch was tested and found to
be not -good, although the veto (for such it is in this
case) may be based on other technical grounds.

I think we need to clarify what “technical grounds" means. Introducing

a

security hole would certainly qualify. As would introducing a bug in
user-visible functionality (if the same change were not removing a more
serious bug). But in less clear-cut cases, where the purported

“technical

grounds” are disputed or subjective, I think a consensus of other
committers should override a veto.
To be clear, the “technical grounds” veto is very important. But if the
threat of it is preventing consensus building, we need to look at it
carefully. Removing the veto threat forces reviewers build consensus,